Thank you for your email of 4th February to the Home Office Freedom of Information team. Please accept my apologies for the considerable delay in responding. This is due to an administrative oversight on our part.

For convenience, I have decided to consider your email as a general enquiry, rather than as a request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, since we do not hold any specific guidance on the question you have asked.

I can confirm that the phrase ‘centre of life’ does not occur within the UK’s domestic Immigration Rules and there is no equivalent phrase therein covering the same criteria. The ‘centre of life’ test is specific to regulation 9 of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006. I previously released guidance to you on how we apply that test (in response to FOI request 30271).

I trust this has clarified matters and I apologise once again for the delay in responding to you.

Thank you for your email of 4th February to the Home Office Freedom of Information team. Please accept my apologies for the considerable delay in responding. This is due to an administrative oversight on our part.

For convenience, I have decided to consider your email as a general enquiry, rather than as a request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, since we do not hold any specific guidance on the question you have asked.

I can confirm that the phrase ‘centre of life’ does not occur within the UK’s domestic Immigration Rules and there is no equivalent phrase therein covering the same criteria. The ‘centre of life’ test is specific to regulation 9 of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006. I previously released guidance to you on how we apply that test (in response to FOI request 30271).

I trust this has clarified matters and I apologise once again for the delay in responding to you.

Thank you for your email of 07 February, in which you ask for the following information:

“Can you please provide myself with information that you hold on assessing Surinder Singh Route
applications from unmarried partners, or any other extended family member that may live as part of my
household such as my 14 year old brother who I have played a role of mother to for the past six years.”

Your request has been handled as a request for information under the Freedom of Information Act
2000.

The provisions set out in regulation 9 of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006
(as amended), which gives effect to the determination of the Court of Justice of the European Union in
the case of C-370/90 (Surinder Singh) apply only to family members of British citizens.

The relevant definition of „family member‟ is that set out in regulation 7, which is as follows:

(a) his spouse or his civil partner;
(b) direct descendants of his, his spouse or his civil partner who are —
(i)
under 21; or
(ii)
dependants of his, his spouse or his civil partner;
(c)
dependent direct relatives in his ascending line or that of his spouse or his civil
partner;
(d)
a person who is to be treated as the family member of that other person under
paragraph (3).

Persons who do not fal within the definition of „family member‟ as set out above are therefore outside
of the scope of regulation 9 and cannot rely on this provision for a right of residence in the UK.

As this provision is not available to persons who fal within the definition of „extended family members‟
as set out in regulation 8, the Home Office does not hold any information relating to assessing
applications from such persons.

If you are dissatisfied with this response you may request an independent internal review of our
handling of your request by submitting a complaint within two months to the address below, quoting
reference 30645. If you ask for an internal review, it would be helpful if you could say why you are
dissatisfied with the response.

As part of any internal review the Department’s handling of your information request will be reassessed
by staff who were not involved in providing you with this response. If you remain dissatisfied after this
internal review, you would have a right of complaint to the Information Commissioner as established by
section 50 of the Freedom of Information Act.

There has been a lot of talk on the internet of late regarding the new Home Office’s Centre of Life Requirement for Surinder Singh. I see lots of people saying that “You must excercise treaty rights for at least X months“. Today infact, a member of the EEA Visa group actually said that The Home Office informed her that she must excercise treaty rights for at least six months to qualify.

This is not correct! Absolute rubbish, and totally out of order for the Home Office to claim such.

Also, if in doubt, simply rely on the word of law. Regulation 9 of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 places absolutely no time limits. To do so would be a good move for Singher’s everywhere as there would be goalposts. The Home Office have simply implemented the Centre of Life requirement so as to allow it’s ECO’s a reason for refusal of any application.

The reasons being spouted by ECO’s are rediculous.

Obviously, the burden of proof is upon the applicant as a balance of probabilities. It is best to provide as strong an application for an EEA Family Permit or Residence Card as possible. Ensure that your covering letter includes the reason that you are returning to the UK. These reasons might well be:

Job Offer

Seriously ill family member

Contact issues with children of a previous relationship (at which Section 55 would also apply)

The UK, as outlined within it’s response, has a duty to assess all cases on their own merits. This was established in the case of Akrich Case C-109/01, along with the fact that you benefit from provision of EC law even if you deliberately place yourself into a position to benefit from EC law.

The Home Office responded to the user’s Freedom of Information request with a generic response and treated the request as a general enquiry (as the user had not specifically requested the release of information, but instead requested clarification of Home Office policy).

For ease the actual response from The Home Office is below:

Dear Mr Syal,

Thank you for your email of 8 November to the Home Office Freedom of Information team seeking clarification of whether dependent parents can qualify for residence documentation under the Surinder Singh route. Your email has been passed to this team to respond to, as we are responsible for policy guidance on European Economic Area (EEA) nationals and their family members. I understand the Freedom of Information team has advised you that your query is being dealt with as a general policy enquiry, since you are seeking clarification of the policy rather than requesting the release of documents or recorded information held by the Home Office.

I can confirm that the Surinder Singh route applies to direct family members, as defined by regulation 7(1)(a)-(c) of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 (‘the EEA Regulations’), provided they meet the requirements set down in regulation 9 of the EEA Regulations.

Direct family members for these purposes are:

the spouse or civil partner of the British citizen, provided they lived with the British citizen in the EEA state in which the British citizen was exercising free movement rights;

direct descendants (children, grandchildren) of the British citizen, or of the British citizen’s spouse or civil partner, provided they are aged under 21 or dependent on the British citizen or the British citizen’s spouse/civil partner; and

dependent direct relatives in the ascending line (i.e. parents and grandparents) of the British citizen, or of the British citizen’s spouse or civil partner.

Therefore, a financially dependent parent of a British citizen can qualify under Surinder Singh/regulation 9, provided the British citizen was engaged in genuine and effective employment or self-employment in another EEA state before returning to the UK.

I am making a Freedom Of Information request to ascertain how the
Home Office defines ‘centre of life’ as pertaining to immigration,
and written copies of all policy documents covering this. I am also
requesting copies of any guidance issued to any officials and
officers regarding decision-making regarding this.

I have been unable to find this information, and am looking forward to hearing from you on this matter.

I particularly like the fact that this FOI response actually states that there is NO MINUMUM TIME LIMIT you must reside / work in the EEA to qualify under Surinder Singh!

It is clear that this new ammendment was simply introduced so as to allow the ECO to use a “Legal” reason for refusal. Ensure that you streghthen any application taking note of all relevant laws / case laws! (Particularly the recent ongoing case of S and O)

Thank you for your email of 28 December to the Home Office Freedom of Information team regarding the Surinder Singh provisions under European Union law and how they apply to dual British/Irish citizens. Your query has been passed to the European Operational Policy Team for a response. We are treating your request as a general enquiry rather than as a request for specific information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

You have asked for “any guidance, legislation or otherwise which might outline a prevention of a dual Irish/British national from benefiting from the case of Surinder Singh via Ireland”. I have interpreted this to mean whether a dual British/Irish citizen can rely on the judgment in Surinder Singh when moving to the UK after a period of residence in Ireland as a worker or self-employed person. Please let me know if this is incorrect.

The Home Office has not produced any guidance on this specific subject. However, in the case of Shirley McCarthy (case C-434/09), the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that Directive 2004/38/EC (‘the Free Movement Directive’) is not applicable to a Union citizen who has never exercised his right of free movement, who has always resided in a Member State of which he is a national and who is also a national of another Member State.

The UK interprets this judgment to mean that a dual British/Irish citizen cannot rely on their Irish citizenship to exercise free movement rights in the UK (and so bring in family members under EU law). Similarly, the same person cannot rely on their British citizenship to exercise free movement rights in Ireland. In both situations, the person would be residing in a Member State of which they are a national and in which they enjoy an unconditional right to reside. Consequently, a dual British/Irish citizen moving from Ireland to the UK would not be able to be able to invoke the judgment in Surinder Singh in order to engage family reunification rights, because their residence in Ireland would not have been covered by the Free Movement Directive.

There is, of course, nothing to prevent a British/Irish citizen from exercising their free movement rights in a Member State of which they are not a national and relying on Surinder Singh on their return to the UK (or Ireland, as the case may be).

On the 8th August 2013, I submitted a FOI request due to the possibility of being classed as a Terrorist for filming / photographic police officers ETC. – Section 58A of the Terrorism Act 2000 (to date, I’ve still recieved no response). I noticed that another user on What Do They Know has also submitted a request regarding filming: Filming Constables in a Public Place.

So, I made a large number of Freedom of Information Requests to some Public Authorities. One of them being the Department for Education, in my request entitled Importance of Play for Under 8s. I have received a sort of response (after some hassles) which I am satisfied with. This response releases the following information:

In addition the DfE have linked me to the search results for all publications containing ‘Play’ in the title.

So, it is clear, from documents already in circulation, in addition to common sense, that children learn the most important lessons for their life in the first five years of their life. Lessons which involve their Primary Physical and Psychological development. I highly recommend looking at the guidance in (2) above, in addition to other information located at http://www.foundationyears.org.uk/.